Viser arkivet for stikkord argumentation

How people fail to notice they are being proven wrong in arguments.

Often people ask questions like “Why don’t people fight climate change? Why don’t people fight ageing? Why don’t people fight AIDS? Why don’t people fight poverty?” and lots of other similar “good fights” they themselves undertake.
On the face of it fighting climate change, aging, AIDS, poverty, all seem like no-brainers. So why don’t people do these things?

1. They think doing something won’t help enough.
2. They think the outcome would not be good.
3. They think it is not a problem of theirs at this moment in time.

Number One is easy to understand. If you think what you yourself can do is not enough to fight climate change, ageing or AIDS then you will not do anything. Number two is present even when it comes to AIDS and aging in some cases. Three is also somewhat easy to understand, most often people have not been thinking about the problem and so it is like an uninvited object they don’t consider theirs. Like if you go up to someone with a random dog-poo bag and say “is this yours?”; they say no if its just a tiny bit negative or something that seem quite out-of-place (there’s a time and a place for everything, it seems).

Ageing:
1. People think they can’t do anything to help stop ageing (no one yet have managed to stop ageing, they think no one has managed to affect ageing, they think no one has a theory of how to succeed, they think ageing is a feature of humans untouchable by biotechnology, they believe this technology will come at the same time in the future no matter what they do).
2. People think the outcome of succeeding in stopping ageing will not be good (They think there will be overpopulation, that bad people will live forever, that science will progress slower if the old don’t die and make room for the new, they believe there will be lack of resources, they believe people should die to make room for the next generation, they believe stopping ageing will result in very poor quality of life because of boredom or very poor health, etc).
3. They think ageing is not a problem that they should concern themselves about right now (They believe they can’t do anything anyways, they believe it won’t be in time for them, they believe they have more pressing things to take care of first, they believe they might do it at another time and place when they can consider the question more, etc).

Climate change:
1. People think they can’t do anything to help stop climate change (fex because they think its not manmade, or because they think everyone else will just continue to pollute even if they themselves stop).
2. People think the outcome of succeeding in stopping climate change will not be good (They believe it will bankrupt the nations to stop it, and a whole bunch of other things).
3. They think climate change is not a problem that they should concern themselves about now (They believe it is still so far away they have more pressing things to take care of first, or that the climate is not changing at all, or that climate change is not due to man).

The same three points can be written for any number of things, including but not limited to:
-Crime.
-Education.
-Personal Health.
-Personal intelligence.
-Specific personal abilities.
-Roads.
-Healthcare.
-Laws.
-Public opinion.
-Traditions.
-Norms.
-Opinions (personal and others).
-What leaders do (prime ministers, presidents, CEO, social group leader etc).
-Pretty much anything, even atheism and agnosticism and ignosticism (“I can’t imagine how life formed” is Type One, Type Two; “I don’t think atheism/agnosticism/ignosticism gives a good quality of life even if I became one” and Type Three is that they don’t feel they have to do all this intellectual work about this particular problem right now).

Most people are not consciously aware of which of these three Types need to be argued in order for them to change their minds. If the main reason they don’t stop aging is type One, Two or Three. And as such, most people fall into the others once one type has been argued against. If you argue against Type One they retort with Type Two or Type Three as if that makes your argument against Type One invalid somehow. If you then argue against the Type they retorted with they retort with either of the other two Types again, as if your first argument against Type One was invalidated.

Quite frankly, I’m tired of meeting this phenomenon every time I argue for rejuvenation biotechnology. People want to force people to die of repairable decay because of three reasons they don’t notice have been proven to be bad reasons. They hop from Type to Type and in-doing so maintain the delusion of not being argued wrong.
I can imagine people that try to get people to stop climate change and cure AIDS and Religion and so forth also could do without this fundamental flaw in human being’s self-proclaimed rationality.

It can be summarized as such;
For something to be done it must be considered feasible, desirable and undeferable.
And subsequently, if it is not considered to be feasible, desirable and undeferable, it will not be done.

Arguments against evolution.

Usually people dismiss arguments they find no fault in because of some first-hand experience. A perfect example is free will. Everyone are happy to accept determinism arguments when they see a billiard-ball getting bumped around on a billiard-table. But make the table and its shape invisible, along with the other billiard-balls, then humans feel like they see a will at work behind the movements of the billiard-ball we can still see. If the cause of the movements are not easily apparent, it gives the illusion of a will.

This first-hand experience is at work when people refuse to agree to determinism arguments, but hardly anyone are clever enough to realize they use first-hand experience (which is very unreliable scientific evidence) to dismiss rational arguments with perhaps no flaws. The dangerous thing about this phenomena is that people feel dismissing arguments based on first-hand experience is the rational thing to do. But if an argument is rational and good, it should over-rule first-hand experience. Like for example when you find no scientific reason to conclude there is such a thing as colored photons. Even though we experience color, it is not an accurate representation of reality and if we use first-hand experience to dismiss all the arguments against the existence of color based on first-hand experience, we are ultimately irrational.

When it comes to evolution there is a number of first-hand experiences at work, most of which haven’t been found yet. I’d say most involve fallacious ideas about what evolution is, because evolution is such a top-down idea when it is taught in school. In reality it is a bottom-up thing, basic chemicals gradually over time becoming more and more complex molecules because they have the time to go through every temperature, pressure, acidity etc again and again over billions of years. But without a heavy knowledge of chemistry most get the first-hand experience that they are unable to connect the dots from hydrogen and carbon and the rest of the elements, to a self-replicating molecule. A metaphor would be that you can see two points on a map, but you are unable to plot a road between them. Then this first-hand experience prevents them from accepting the arguments, and they feel it is the rational thing to do. The reason they dismiss the arguments for evolution are not because of arguments, it is because of their first-hand experience, so all the arguments they cook up against evolution mirror their misguided reason for dismissing evolution. Since they only dismissed evolution because of some first-hand experience, not arguments, their arguments are always fallacious. The reason for this is that they try to back-up their irrational dismissal of the arguments, they are in essence thinking “I am rational, and I dismissed evolution, therefore evolution must be wrong”. They don’t go out to disprove the theory, they just go out to find indications of it being wrong. In a way, they think “what would a wrong theory look like?”, and then they set off and find drunk researchers, greedy researchers, obvious errors and all the rest of it. They already know the theory is wrong, so they don’t actually remember to find an argument that convinces everyone that it is wrong, they just point out things like comedians. “hey have you noticed how they can not figure it all out after 150 years of study? Have you ever seen a lion give birth to a duck? Do these evil people really expect me to believe this thing they have not figured out completely?”. None of which disprove evolution, but to them, who already feel like they know evolution is wrong, its the funniest thing in the world, and it helps them feel rational for dismissing evolution.

People don’t need the right answer, they just need to feel good about the answer they already have. Its the 100 dollars now is better than 101 dollars in a month bias. We all think our current view of the world is worth a hundred bucks, so our laziness keeps us from expending more energy on it. Our genes make us lazy because we might need that fat for a famine.

How argumentation fails to change peoples mind.

There are a number of fundamental things that stop people from supporting, in this example, rejuvenation biotechnology. None of the fundamental things can be the rejuvenation biotechnology in itself. The problem lay in the brain of the people (I’m not saying they’re braindamaged), because even if we make them into rejuvenation biotechnology experts they will still have things that will exert energy in their mind, exerting a mental force which pushes them from supporting rejuvenation biotechnology. Meanwhile none-experts like myself do not need to be an expert to support it.

I can explain it in terms of a discussion about free will. It is a topic I have spent close to a thousand hours on and when I explain it, others do not always understand what I say to such an extent they learn something. Most of the time we are two unchanging arguments being sent again and again toward each other. Unless my words and expressions are exactly right and about exactly the right thing which stops them from accepting my conclusion, they still disregard the information I give them and still conclude their view is the correct one. Out of a thousand comments, only a rare few, like ten or twenty, actually conveys information. The others are like one saying “we do not have free will” in pages of words, and the other party going “we have free will” in lots of pages of words. Neither side gets a real reason to reexamine their position.
One in a thousand comments find out the problem, in this case the problem is usually that free will is something we see when the cause of events are not easily apparent. If the billiard ball is bounced around on a table with lots of other billiard-balls, its easy to see there is no free will because we can see exactly what causes all the movements of the billiard ball. If however the table and the other billiard balls are invisible and give no sound, the billiard ball we can see bouncing around appears to have free will and we feel the same as when we see a human deciding to do something.
Until the cause of the argument being rejected is found, it exerts such a powerful force on the mind of the person that he/she does not accept the other argument regardless of its quality. In this case the person still thinks “but I see free will, I feel free will, when I see someone decide between options, this supercede your arguments against free will even though your arguments are without fault”. Regardless of the quality of the arguments I use to prove there is no free will, the only argument that works is usually the one which shows how free will is an illusion.
When people experience to see and feel like it is free will when a human decide which road to take to work, but to see determinism at work when a ball rolls down a hill, they do not take the now obvious-to-us route and ask “why do a ball not look like free will but a human does look like he/she has free will?”. The common thing to do without this piece of idea is to invent lots of arguments, many rational and good and sane arguments, that try to prove to the person that free will exists, to rationalize the delusional observation. The reason for the arguments are inherently to rationalize delusional observations (the observation of free will in humans, the lack of free will in the ball is an observation that fits with reality) and thus these rationalizations are unable to truly explain what free will is to such an extent we can put free will in a ball, or laptop, or other products.

I think we should look for what similarly keeps people from wanting rejuvenation biotechnology. It is probably not rejuvenation biotechnology which is the problem. It is probably none of the arguments for and against rejuvenation biotechnology that is the real problem.
If you ask someone “what keeps you from wanting rejuvenation biotechnology?”, their answer will probably not be the correct one. Their answer will be based on the true answer, like in my experience with free will. When I asked them “what prevents you from accepting that free will does not exist?” they were not able to put into words that they “feel like” they see free will when the causes of events are not easily apparent to us. They invented another answer based on feeling like they see free will when the causes of events are not easily apparent to them.
I arrived at my insight into free will by trying a new way to argue it does not exist every time, making a point to try to not repeat previously made arguments, but it took several months of discussions with those who firmly believed in the existence of free will, before I gained the ultimate insight into why they refused to accept free will does not exist.

Somehow, someway, there’s something that supercede arguments in our minds, something first-hand that we experience which makes us think the arguments must be false even in circumstances where there are no faults in the arguments.
Even though the arguments are not at fault (they’re not experienced as wrong or irrational), this first-hand experience forces us to disregard the arguments in favor of some anti-argument stance. We must figure out what it is and how it works, so we can explain why we get this first-hand experience under certain circumstances while not under other circumstances where we are happy to accept the arguments. Similarly to how we experience some groups of atoms have free will under certain conditions but are perfectly happy to accept the arguments for determinism for other groups of atoms.
I think this shall be the “first-hand bias”. A bias that pushes us to disregard arguments however perfect when they conflict with first-hand experience. Most often without recognizing that we irrationally use first-hand experience in place of arguments, we then experience the delusion of being rational by disregarding the arguments that conflict with first-hand experience. No doubt this has its dosage of chemicals in the brain and certain neurological activity.

Type One: Two people using first-hand biases to disregard the other’s arguments will ultimately result in mostly irrational illogical arguments and fail to resolve anything.
Type Two: Then there is when one person who uses first-hand bias to argue against another which does not use this first-hand bias. This will ultimately lead to one side making irrational illogical arguments and the other will spend much time disproving them but not swaying the other party to accept the arguments from the none-biased party.
Type Three: Then there is the beautiful argument when two people without the first-hand bias trade arguments. Almost never bred in captivity its a rare creature to encounter.
Most day-to-day discussions between two none-experts in a subject are of the first type. Politics, facebook-arguments, etc, are type one arguments more often than not. When an expert discuss with a none-expert it is usually type two, and when two experts in the same subject discuss their expertise subject they can occasionally fall into type three discussions.

If you have an experience that tells you otherwise than the argument made, that your experience is that first-hand experience only very rarely makes us disregard arguments, then you are sort of proving my point.

To give a reason is to point out where it falls short.

Is an answer a valid answer if the answer fails to answer the obvious question the answer makes nessesary?
Example; Statement A is true because Reason B. Given this very common form of argument, can reason B ever be true, or considered true, if one does not also give an answer to Reason C, which makes Reason B true? Any reason B given must question itself by giving a reason C which makes reason B is true, and a reason D which makes reason C true and so on, and conceed where the end of reasoning has come in the argument. For example, if argument A is true because Reason B, because Reason C, because Reason D, but has no scientifically or logically valid Reason yet to make Reason D true, it should be pointed out, by the defending side of an argument (the one with burden of evidence), and any argumenter that does not do this readily, should be dismissed until such time atleast an end of reasoning is given. Though this does give room for Reason B1, Reason B2 etc so one can give more of one type of evidence (for example if a fossil is Reason B1, you can add more fossils as B2, B3 etc).

This should speed up argumentation in arguments that commonly only defend statement A with Reason B, without no thought to Reason C, Reason D, or that the line of reasons B, C, D, E etc exist at all (For example theism, tax-law, law, politics, psychology (those important psychologists without good scientific instruments still influence reasoning in that field heavily), public services (clamour for more money is rarely reasoned even as far as Reason B), lobbying (its very easy for anyone with time on their hands to say A is true because of Reason B, deregulate and tax corporations and the rich less (which is the problem in the majority of the economy-crisis -stricken nations)), corporate public relations and a thousand other things not too acsociated with the science of argumentation).

Argumentation is a science.

Psychology is often misunderstood, and all too often the word “mind” holds an almost theistic meaning. But there is a science behind what I must say in an argument with someone else, to get that someone else to change his mind, if what I am arguing is true or not only changes the difficulty.
For example, how do one get someone that believes in “chemtrails” to see reason, which is that the streaks after jet airplanes make the water in the air the airplane passes through to condense into clouds. How does one find a group of words that will be successful in convincing someone that does not believe this? Because if I say “this is rubbish, no one has ever found chemicals in these trails beyond what the fuel combustion releases”, it is almost guaranteed to not work. Because they have hundreds of opinions and beliefs they believe are facts about the world based on the one opinion that someone pays for filling up airplanes with thousands of tons of chemicals every year that they release all over the world from high altitude, and that no one on the inside ever dares speak of it. How does one make an argument that does not get rejected? The problem is not the facts or logic you convey, but how you convey it. I have for example found that most arguments get rejected not because of lacking logic or reason in the argument, but because the person who is told an argument think it will lower his/her social standing to agree, or a million other reasons that has nothing to do with what is being argued. A wrong use of the word “you” and the most well-spoken, well-reasoned, logical and scientifically proven argument gets rejected by the other side. This is merely a phenomena of human nature and nurture and should not be mistaken as “the one I argue with are all stupid and incapable of accepting facts”, because you also have this phenomena, the point you should take from this is that it is your mistake as an argumenter if you can not form a sentence that will get the other side to accept your argument. We are all subject to the laws of physics so rigid that a key can exist which never fits a certain lock, your words are as a key and the other person is like the lock, without the right key, the lock never fits, without changing your own lock, you never really understand what the other side is arguing, nor will you use the other side’s argument for all that it is worth, and without changing the key you try without the purpose of making a key that fits as a goal, you will fail. To argue merely to argue, without the goal to actually convince people of your view, is as useless as talking to yourself.

I hope you apply the science of forming an argument with the psychology of accepting arguments in your mind, because without it, ignorance will flourish as the children of ignorant people also adopt ignorant ways without us becoming better at arguing with ignorant people.

I also hope you keep in mind that we are born like blank slates, with nature-derived biases from evolution, but with no knowledge, and that we learn the same information at school (if we are A students, otherwise it will be some unique portion we do not know), so there should be a universal way of convincing someone to accept your argument, but only as far as for those that learned the same things in school. So people from different nations will be quite different, for good and bad. There will also be some difference from one class to another, from one town to another, from one school reform to another, and from one parent to another, from one grandparent to another etc. All the people and experiences in the lives of the person you are trying to get to accept your argument, will affect how you can get the person to accept your argument. So there will be some experiences that are very easy to base an argument from, easy as they will easily accept your argument, and there will be things that are very difficult to base arguments on, difficult as they will most often reject your argument regardless of what it says. An example; The trees are red, is an argument. They will reject this argument if they have experienced green trees, or if many people they know have said trees are green. So regardless of what you say, yellow trees, ultraviolet trees etc, it will be rejected. Most arguments for why trees are another color will be rejected no matter how much sense they make, how much evidence they present, and it is statistically almost impossible to get someone that believe trees are green to believe that trees are not green, if you use an un-enlightened approach to argumentation. It is the same with religion. They have lived inside religion, experiencing green trees so to speak, experiencing people they know and respect and trust saying trees are green etc. But, this does not mean it is impossible to figure out an argument that they will accept. Otherwise no one would have ever believed the planet went around the sun. Because the sky would look the same if the planet went around the sun or the sun went around the planet, both claims are to the senses of humans equally true. But somehow the facts were enough to change what the children experienced as truth from one to the other, perhaps without their parents accepting the new view and the children mostly only accepting the new view because the old view weren’t presented first. A study of how the world went from accepting an earth-centered universe to a sun-centered universe, could do wonders to the science of argumentation.

True agnosticism, or is it?

I will try to explain what agnosticism is, as I have seen houndreds of definitions, only some of them include the original origin of the word from greek.

Origin of the word “agnost” (of which “agnostic” is from): Greek ágnōst, variant of ágnōtos, which mean “not known”, “incapable of being known”.

This an example of how an agnostic would argue the existence or inexistence of God:
God does not exist is belief A-, God exist is belief A+, believing A- or A+ is belief B+, not believing A- or A+ is belief B-, believing B+ or B- is belief C+, not believing C+ is C-, believing C+ or C- is belief D+, not believing C+ or C- is belief D- and this goes on for an infinite amount of time.
And ofcourse, an agnostic does not hang on to any belief beyond those proven and disproven, and even those that are proven or disproven are also beliefs that will instantly be thrown aside if disproven or proven right etc. This is an agnostic view. I dont know if I hope you adopt it or if I hope you do not adopt it, or if I hope either, or that I hope anything at all. The next time you asume anything, also asume the opposite, and then asume neither of your asumptions etc.